Here you will find information and ideas relating to how one can be more free in a society that appears to limit freedom of the individual, more and more. To master something, one needs to understand it first. I hope these essays will make you understand both the current system and your relationship to it.

Tax

Educate Yourself

"You can't know too much - but you sure as hell can know too little."

The
articles in this blog are aimed at giving people interested in living
life on their own terms, rather than being told what to do, some
basic understanding of who or what they are, as well as the nature of
the System we are up against.

If
you are serious about your own freedom and that of your brothers and
sisters of this planet, you will have to learn a lot more than what
you will find in this blog. You will not find what you need to know
by sitting watching YouTube clips of someone outsmarting a cop who
stopped them for some reason or something clever to say in Court.

I
am not saying that there are not good stuff on YouTube, but the good
material is generally not given in a few minutes. That is too short
to be able to convey much knowledge at all.

If
you are serious about taking a stand for your own and others freedom
and future, you will have to put in some serious time. You will have
to read through some books about law. You will have to become
familiar with both alternative methods and remedies practiced by
people who may call themselves all kind of things, as well as the
principles that apply to the current “Justice System”.

If
you are going to do this, it is pretty likely that you will end up in
the Courts we have today. This is the modern battlefield. This is
where most battles are fought today. This is where a lot of money is
being made by the System and this is where we often find ourselves
giving up our rights, possessions and the fruits of our labour.

Below, I will introduce you to different people who you could
learn a lot from. They use different approaches and philosophies in
their methods. But one for one they have one thing in common. They
have a considerable experience of being in a Court Room. Some have
done so in practicing law in a conventional way, others have done it
as “Freemen”, “Sovereigns”, “Living Men”, “Creditors in
Commerce”, or whatever label you like to use for Freedom
Seekers.

To become good and to avoid the pitfalls – no
matter what subject or skill one tackles, one need to practice. And
the harder it is, the more practice one needs. Even if you are a
“natural” at something, you need to do some practicing. It is one
thing to watch films and videos of ice skating, or read a lot about
it. If you know a lot about ice skating, you will most likely learn
it faster, than if you never heard about it before. But there is no
substitute for putting a pair of skates on your feet and get out on
that slippery ice, and fall and fail, until you finally become really
good at it.

If
you look at any profession that is a bit technical or hard to master,
those that are truly good at it, had to study for years. Then work or
practice. Then study new developments to keep up with the subject. In
fact, a true professional never stops learning and never stops trying
to improve his ability.

In this game of taking back our
freedom, our rights and our lives, it is no different. We as a group
become more and more educated and new strategies and facts surface
all the time. And since we do not have our own “Peoples Courts”
yet, we are left to fight our battles in writing and if that fails in
person in Trials and other Court Hearings. Man's law and rules change
too – usually for the worse. So we need to keep tab on those things
there, that concern us.

You
may say “But this is not fair. Most people are not smart enough to
fight this game. Justice should be simple and all we should need are
basic principles like 'We are all equal', 'Do no harm', 'My rights
end where your rights begin', etc.”

Well,
welcome to planet Earth. Most people are not smart enough to become
computer programmers or surgeons. Most people are not responsible and
incorruptible enough to live life according to those simple
rules.

Maybe one day – if we can get rid of the negative or
evil influences that now control our way of life and if we can evolve
as beings to a mental level where we will cooperate in a spirit of
love, rather than fighting each other and compete for things we
really do not need, we can have a simpler and more fair life. Maybe
doing this freedom seeking now, is a step in that direction.

I
know that most people would look at the length of this text, right
here, and would think something like “Oh, I can't be asked to read
all that. Moving on...” The education today is so poor that few
people can even be considered literate. I have a friend in Sweden who
tried to find a partner via dating sites some years ago. She said
that 75% of the emails or texts she got were full of misspellings and
poor punctuation. Those were rejected immediately. And Sweden has one
of the better literacy rates.

I
will add a section below, which will be a little crash course in how
to learn stuff by studying. But if you are still with me you are
probably literate enough to manage this, or stubborn enough to fight
through whatever it takes to learn what you need.

Treat this
page of the blog as a kind of “Course Schedule” or Layout. I
suggest you study a bit at the time, instead of just reading through
it all in one go and then hopefully going on to pick someone’s
teachings and get into that. I have tried to make it flow in a
logical sequence – at least the first parts. But if you already are
familiar with some of this and some of the suggested “teachers”
below, by all means pick and chose.

KNOW
YOURSELF

The
beginning of any education starts with oneself.

Why
do I want to know this?What will I do with the knowledge I am
getting?

How
will it change my life?Does it align with my purpose in life?Am
I willing to pay the price, in time, in costs and in sacrifices?How
bad do I want it?

Everything has it's price. That price is not
always in the form of money. It can be other things you value. So
before you decide to dedicate yourself to this you need to be serious
about it and willing to put in time and possibly fork out some money
on materials that might further your education.

Below you will
be presented with different more or less workable approaches. Some of
it will be available for free, others will want some donations to
share what they have learned the hard way.

A
doctor or an engineer will have to study for years and then practice
for some more before they will be good and considered fully trained
and competent. Then they will have to keep up with new developments
for the rest of their career. Freedom seeking is a bit the same.

But
there is one more thing you need to know with regard to self here.
You are a co-creator of life and the world we live in. You are not a
“cogwheel in a large machine”. You are born equal and with equal
rights and freedoms to everyone else on this planet. You have no
right to rule other, nor have they any right to rule you – unless
you give them that right knowingly and voluntarily.

You
are an unfinished novel or movie, and you are the writer, the
producer and the director of your life;s movie.

You
are an X quantity and can play almost any role in the game of life,
with exception for some physical limitations and your state of
mind.

This is true about your relationship with the system of
society we live in too. This system is dreamed up by men like you and
I and as living men we stand above our creation. So in relation to
all the fictions we people have come up with to make life better or
more interesting, we are all in our natural capacity God – when it
comes to the fictions of Man. You may say “well I did not come up
with the Laws, so how can I be God in relation to them?” You are
God in that you allow them to exist. If no one believed in them, they
would not be laws. Same with money, contracts, corporations, titles,
etc. They exist because we as Man-Gods allow them to exists and
matter. If we use them, we show with our actions that we give our
consent and our endorsement. It is all voluntary. This “voluntary”
part may be hard to see at first, but I promise you that if you keep
an open mind and can let go of any hate you might harbour, you will
realize this sooner or later.

There is no secret manual about
how life works. There is no great “authority” that dictates the
“correct” way of doing things. You can create anything you can
conceive. Your creator have given you fairly free reigns – a
species that abuses that freedom and does not contribute to the
general direction of Life itself, will soon be gone from this Earth.
Remember this when you start to play with paperwork and courts.

Before
I make the chapters of the different approaches one can take and
where you can find more materials or knowledge on that specific
subject, there are a few common things I want to go over so you have
a few general tools under your belt. These are things I have picked
up along the way and which I have had success with and seen others
use with good results. None of this escapes the Buddhist rule “If
it is not true for you, it is not true”. Nor is it legal advice or
necessarily true or always effective. You are ultimately responsible
for your actions. I am not forcing or telling anyone to follow
anything suggested here. This is presented as possible strategies or
methods, for your use if you so choose. There may be many factors
that affects the outcome of any use of the ideas below, and all of
those may not be covered here. I make no claim to the completeness of
these materials or their work-ability in all situations.

HOW
TO LEARN A SUBJECT

First
you need to have a “want” or a purpose for studying the subject.
Only you can say what that is. It may be to get back a child that was
stolen from you by Social Services. It may be to get a piece of land
and live on it in peace without being told what you can and cannot do
on it – like how your dwelling must be built, what you can grow,
whether you must pay for connection to the grid, or water and sewage,
etc, etc. It may be to never pay direct taxes again. It may be to
help your fellow man with cures that are forbidden within the
commercial system se live in. It may be to bring balance to the world
of finance and settle the bogus national and personal debts that
riddles our people.

Once you have established a worthwhile
purpose, you need to start with the very basics of the subject. This
includes things like vocabulary, maxims and basic principles of the
subject, some history of the subject.

Then
pick some part of it that seems doable to you and study all you think
you need to get your feet wet in trying out in practice. Count on
doing mistakes and getting some things wrong. But this will just be
part of the learning process.

If something seems very involved
or technical. Take some time and draw it up on a sheet of paper or
use different objects that represents parts of the whole and set the
scene up on a table – a bit like generals at headquarters placing
pieces representing troops, weapons and logistics on a map on a
table, to get a clearer view of the situation.

Also, and maybe
most importantly. If you cannot understand what all the words in a
sentence means, you will not fully understand the sentence, nor will
you understand the paragraph, the chapter or the book. ALWAYS make
sure you know what the words mean. There is no excuse with the
internet, that holds both general dictionaries and legal ones. It may
also be a good idea to get a few legal dictionaries in book form.
That way you can study a book on contract law, Trust law or
Administrative law on a plane or a beach somewhere.

Get
familiar with the actual physical objects and environments of what
you study. If you study how to deal with traffic tickets, spend a
morning in Court and see what goes on there as a spectator, in a
court room that deals with these.

A good professional never
stops learning and observing what others do in his field. I'm in
woodwork and construction. When the wife drags me from one clothing
shop to another, I look at the shelving, the counter and other
furniture in the shop, to see how it is made and what finishes they
have used. One can learn lots by just observing.

Practice,
practice and practice some more. Put yourself in situations that
might force you to use what you are studying. If, for example you
need to practice questioning everything, practice on family and
friends. Try to do it in such a subtle way that they do not realize
you are practicing on them. When we build habits, it gets easier to
do things and it becomes second nature.

When I got a speeding
or parking ticket, I took it as homework or a practical assignment.
When bailiffs came knocking on the door about the unpaid fines, I
took it as an exam or test.

CRITICAL
THINKING

As
children our parents set the rules of the house and the family. When
we questioned these we got replies like “Because I say so”, “My
house my rules” or my mothers favourite “You will understand when
you become grown up”. So we get used to follow rules without
questioning. Same continues in school. If you did military service
this was drilled into you. Workplaces are often the same – do what
we pay you to do, or find another place to work.

It is a bit
like the training of a powerful animal like a horse or an elephant.
The animal must not realize that it is more powerful than you and
must be made so accustomed to becoming commanded and handled, that it
stops resisting and willingly does anything it is directed to
do – even charge into battle. It is the same with people. If the
masses understood that they are being farmed like animals and almost
all of the value they produce will be confiscated for the “owners”,
this system would fall tomorrow.

We
are not taught to think critically or logically. That could make us
realize that we are being used inappropriately. Most of us were
actually pretty good at this – at about 3 or 4 years age. We asked
“Why” as a response to almost anything we were presented with.
Wise and patient parents tried their best to explain, and thus gave
their children a good start in life. Others fobbed off the child and
soon he or she saw no point in asking anymore as no answers came
forth.

We need to get back to that state of mind. Looking at
everything with fresh eyes and question anything that does not make
sense. Like when a Judge reads the charges, and asks “Do you
understand?”, do not just say Yes, so you do not seem dumb. Say
“No”. When you are asked what you do not understand, list all the
things with the whole matter that does not make sense to you. For
example: “If no one was harmed or endangered by the alleged
contravention, how can there be a charge? Who makes the charge that I
did anything wrong? Where is my accuser? If all men are born equal
and no one is another’s master, and I have caused no harm to my
fellow man, what gives you the right to make decisions about this
matter? What law-form is this court operating in? If the State is the
employer of the policeman that issued the ticket, of the prosecutor
and of you as a Judge, how is that not a conflict of interest and how
can a defendant get a fair trial? Why is the defendants name written
as KENT BENGTSSON in the paperwork, and why is the name on the
invitation to attend this hearing that was dropped in my letterbox
Kent BENGTSSON? What is that about? What does this court seem me as,
what capacity have you invited me here in? Etc, etc.

And
for every answer they give you, there will be more questions – if
you are sharp.

Act
in a humble, earnest and non-accusatory manner. Don't be a “Smart
Alec”. You are trying to paint them into a corner. You are trying
to get out of there unharmed. No need to act in a manner that will
cause animosity.

Do
not just take what is said to be the truth as the truth. Observe for
yourself and trust your own observation over others claims.

When
something does not make sense or conflicts with what you have
observed, it probably contains a lie. Use questioning to unearth that
lie.

HOW
TO SIGN THINGS

As
I mentioned above, we are actors in the game of life. We can play a
lot of roles.

This
is also true about our relationship with our Juristic Person (the
Strawman). This entity that represents (re-presents) us in the
fictional world of commerce, law, politics, etc. appears to be a
Trust. But may be seen as all kinds of things – again depending on
how someone what to see it.

If it's role has not been
expressed, and if your role in relation to it has not been expressed
a Court or some other public institution may interpret these things
in a way that is most beneficial to it.

Remove
this freedom of interpretation by expressing the role of the legal
Person for the specific instance as well as what role you are
fulfilling in relation to it. Also express what role the State or any
other opponent holds with regard to it at that moment.

This
requires a basic understanding of Trust Law and the parts of a Trust.
More on that below. But let me just go over that very quickly here.

A
Trust is a juristic person, a fiction invented to fulfil some
purpose. Often to care for some property. It consists of something of
value that is being placed into trust. A name for this is “the
Res”. The creator(s) of the Trust is called the “Settlor”,
Grantor” or “Trustor”. Note that they all end with “or” as
in “Creator”. This is the one(s) who places something of value
into a Trust.

The Trust is created for one or more parties
benefit. These are called “Beneficiaries” or if only one
“Beneficiary”.

Last
but not least every Trust has a “Trustee”. This is the person who
has the duty to carry out the will of the Settlor (Creator) in
accordance with the Trust Indentures, which are the rules laid out by
the Settlor for how the Trust is to be administered.

For
example: A wealthy man does not trust that his children will act
wisely or responsibly with the money they inherit at his death. So he
creates a Trust in which his wealth is placed. He is the Settlor and
the Children are the Beneficiaries. He then appoints his accountant
or lawyer to be the trustee for the trust. The trustee will then
manage the wealth and release a reasonable amount money every year to
the children after his death. The trustee is entitled to compensation
for work done for the Trust.

One
person cannot fill all roles in a Trust. Then it is not a Trust. But
one can be Settlor, Trustee and Beneficiary, if there are more
beneficiaries in addition to self.

If
I'm correct in the assumption that the Strawman is a Trust, then your
Parents are the Settlors (a role that you will inherit), You and the
State are beneficiaries and someone is the Trustee. This Trustee role
is a somewhat sticky one, as the Trustee is responsible and has
duties.

We have also two classes of Trusts. One is the
“Expressed Trust” where it is all written down and laid out
clear. The second is the “Constructive Trust”. It should really
be called the “Construed Trust”. But the people that run the show
like to deceive the public, so will use misleading terms.The
latter is not expressed and the roles can be assumed. The Strawman
Trust is such a Trust – until it is expressed. This will allow the
State or Courts to assume that you are the Trustee and have the duty
to settle any demands upon the Trust – such as fines, taxes,
penalties, community service, military service, jury duty, etc.

It
also allows them to act as Trustee with regard to the value you
generate for the Strawman and your share of the Nation. There is said
to be an account that represents this, which can have quite
staggering amounts in it. If they in the case of your account or
estate are the trustees then they can manage this and pay themselves
for it. So when it suits them they will be the Trustee and other
times they will assume that you are the Trustee. Very
convenient.

The way to deal with this is to express the roles
in the Trust, so that they are no longer at liberty to construe these
as they please.

Right now you will not be knowledgeable enough
to fully express the whole Trust, but you can, if it serves you,
express the capacity in which you are signing a document. Therefore:
When relevant, qualify in what
capacity you are signing a document.This
does not have to be trust related. You can also qualify your status
in any way you like.

When you create your own paperwork, you
can do this any way you see fit, for example:

“Yours
Sincerely

[ autograph ]

Kent
of the Bengtsson family, a living Man, Settlor and Beneficiary of the
KENT BENGTSSON Trust.”

But
what does one do if one needs to sign some form or contract one did
not design?

Then specify the status you assume in signing it,
or simply just use “by:” before the signature. The “by:” is
often used by officers of corporations when signing for the position
they hold. This is said to specify that they sign as that fictional
entity and do not take any personal responsibility for whatever they
confirm with the signature.

If you want to specify the role in
the Trust that you take on, sign “by Beneficiary: [signature]” or
any other role, such as Settlor or Trustee. Beneficiary would be the
safest and most applicable one in most situations, as the Beneficiary
have no duties or responsibilities.

Another useful thing one
can use when signing others paperwork, is to put “...” before and
after the signature. Three dots signifies that something has been
omitted. That way one can later clarify what should have been said
before the signature and after it – giving you freedom to say
exactly what you want to be there, but which you did not have the
time or space to specify at the time of signing.

When
signing something you need to decide in what capacity you do so –
if it matters at all.If you sign for a parcel being delivered, it
does not matter. But remember to write “not inspected” if you
have not inspected the goods being delivered.

If you sign a
cell phone contract, it matters little, as you are acting as the
Strawman when you do so, same goes for opening accounts etc. In all
such circumstances you are acting in the fictional world of commerce
as your Strawman/Person. Usually no point in complicating things. The
fictions can only do business with other fictions. This is what your
Strawman/Person is for. No one will dispute that you are entitled to
use this entity for such purposes (except maybe the people that
believe “It is illegal to use the legal name”). This is a
privilege you have as the beneficiary of that Trust.

Just as
one man can be a number of things at different times, such as
father/mother, worker, customer, gym member, driver, claimant,
defendant, lover, fighter, etc. so can we take on any role we please.
We are only limited by our imagination and what we think is suitable.

Examples:Living man/woman

Free
man

Peaceful
inhabitant

Ignorant
Idiot

Founder

Child
of God

Natures
Child

Immortal
spirit

Co-creator

Partner

non-domestic
entity

I
like to quote Brandon Adams, who is one of my favourite teachers in
these matters. He said something like this to an audience once:

“All
the terms and all the names I have given various notices and
paperwork, where do you think I got them from? Is there some
authority that says what words you can use and what you must call
things? No! I pulled them out of my arse. I could just as well have
called them something else and defined them any way I liked to. We
make shit up. And so does everyone else.”

DEALING
WITH OFFERS

In
this current commercial system we call our modern society, anything
directed at us can be seen as “an offer to do business”. It does
not matter if it is a leaflet for solar heating or a policeman at the
door, wanting to arrest you for some real or imagined offense or
crime. As private living sovereign men and women, we stand under no
one, and no one is above us. We are in fact our own sovereign nation
– each one of us. If no one is above you, no one can order you to
do anything, unless you have already consented to that (more on this
later in this “course”).

This is why I say everything is
an offer to do business – as one cannot force a free man to do
anything.

There are a few ways one can respond to such an
offer. Some of these are honourable others are not.

You
can accept the offer. This is honourable. You pay or perform in
accordance with what is offered. In the case of the arresting police
officer, you let yourself be arrested and booked at the station.
Maybe not the best option though.

You
can refuse the offer. Not always honourable, and it may lead to
further trouble down the road.

You can remain silent. Also not
very honourable, as we humans like to have communication going. It
may also lead to further trouble down the road, as in law silence is
usually interpreted as silent consent. When I was young politicians
often justified the taking of an unpopular decision by the phrase “We
base our decision on the consent of the silent majority”.

You
can make a “counter offer”. This is honourable and also has the
benefit of placing your offer on top, in the negotiations. In the
case of the arresting officer, it could be something like “I accept
your offer to arrest Mr KENT BENGTSSON and take him into custody, if
you can identify the defendant (remember they want to arrest the
Strawman, which is a fiction) and upon presentation of an original
accusatory instrument for my inspection.” More about the latter,
later in the “course”.

These offers versus counter offers
can go back and forth for some time. Just like a buyer and car dealer
haggling over a sale.

The Counter Offer is generally the best
response to an offer to make business – unless you like the
original offer, like for example “We are from the National Lottery,
and if you are Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, and can prove it, we are
authorized to transfer one million into your account.”

Aside
from offers to do business, we often face various accusations. A
fairly effective way to deal with such is what is called “Confess
and Avoid”. This is practiced by politicians and people in the
legal profession a lot.

Example: You to Judge: “Are you
acting under your oath of office now?” Judge: “I have my oath
right here by my side.” He confessed by his failure to answer that
he is not. Remember silence is consent. And then he tries to avoid
the question by coming with an irrelevant statement. If you accept
that you have let him off the hook.

Or a policeman stops your
car and asks “Are you John Smith?” and you counter with “Have
you just observed me cause any harm or act in a manner putting lives
or property at risk?” Him: “No.”

You:
“Then what does it matter who I am?” You confessed by not
answering the question, and avoided the matter by asking a question.
This would probably carry on for a while, and you just stay in the
question and maybe add some counter offers to his offers.

There
is a formal way of dealing with offers, using contract and
administrative law. This is described in depth in the materials of
Creditors in Commerce below. A common name for this process is “The
three step process”.

Here
are some videos that also describes
this:

This
is generally effective. Especially when dealing with companies who
just want to make a quick buck out of you. Like parking companies,
debt collectors, etc.

CONTRACT
= LAW & LAW = CONTRACT

This
is a favourite subject of Gordon Hall of Creditors in Commerce. But
it is not a new concept.

Here
are a couple of “Maxims of Law”. These are very old basic
principles of Law. This is directly applicable to contracts, but in a
wider sense applies to any so called law.

Consensus
facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the
parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

Contractus
legem ex conventione accipiunt. The agreement of the parties makes
the law of the contract. Dig. 16, 3, 1, 6.

If
we operate on the idea that the creator is superior to the creation,
and that we were created by Mother Nature or some God. That makes us
second “in command”.

We as people then created laws,
rules, customs, agreements, governments, associations, corporations,
military, police, justice systems, money, banks, accounting, trusts,
etc. etc. These are all our creations, and as such are junior to
us. Thus they can thus only apply to us with our consent. The
creation cannot tell the creator what to do – that would be a
perversion of the natural order. If the creation can become the
master of it's creator, a monster has been created (such as the
Frankenstein’s Monster, the Machines in the Terminator movies or a
cold unthinking heartless construct manned by unthinking
irresponsible zombies – like a modern Government) and for our own
good, all effort should be made to destroy or tame any such monster.

Thus
from the viewpoint of being living breathing thinking people, all is
by consent (contract). This applies to all man-made “Law”. The
laws of Nature does not care if we consent or not. Man cannot cancel
them. But we can cancel any man made law.

So
when you see the word “Law” think “Contract”, and vice versa.
For more on this see the suggestions on how to study the materials of
Creditors in Commerce below.

How
does this matter, you may ask yourself.

Well, you have to take
responsibility for the contracts you have entered into during your
life, and if you do not like them, you will have to undo them.
Contracts can be fluid. They can change with changing circumstances,
with new offers or players entering the scene.

Part of your
education as a Freedom Seeker should definitely be a good book on
contracts. Preferably a popular one for you own country, or one that
is used in your country.

When you understand that almost all
human interaction is based on contracts, you will see a clearer
picture of the human world and be able to deal with it more
effectively.

A common misunderstanding is that a contract is a
piece of paper with signatures on it. This is not the case. The
contract is the agreement of the parties – no papers needed. The
paper is the recording of the agreement. That recording may be
good to have if any party fails to honour the contract.

The
agreement does not even have to be expressed in spoken or written
words. A contract can be implied through our actions. If we step on a
bus or a train, it is assumed we know that we need a valid ticket or
that we will pay for the trip. If you sit down in a restaurant and
order from the menu, there is no lengthy written contract that says
you will honour the payments of the order, you will not make other
diners feel uncomfortable and you will leave a customary tip for the
waiter, and the restaurant will not stipulate how they will cook the
food and that the cook will not spit in the soup, etc. etc. those
“contract conditions” are presumed and “Good Will” is
presumed to be part of any contract.

Again, when you fully
know something, you will have no or few problems with it. Get that
contract book, and read it.

LAW
FORMS

How
often have you heard the phrase “It's the Law” as if that is an
absolute and indisputable fact that cannot be questioned in any
way.

I like Mark Stevens asking a Cop in a cross examination
“Is it your opinion, that the correct speed limit for the road in
question is X miles per hour?” Cop, “No, it's the Law.” Mark,
“Oh, so it is someone else’s opinion then.”

ALL
man made “law” is based on the ideas of one or more human like
yourself. The better ones are based on experience that have stood the
test of time and which almost anyone agrees with. The not so good
ones have been dreamed up to protect someone’s vested interest or
profit. Like the ludicrous idea that a corporation can patent a life
form, just because their staff has genetically altered it a bit or
even because they were the first to request it to be patented. That
is no different than to say that I can claim ownership of a fellow
man, just because I altered him by cutting off his pinkie finger.

There
is a hierarchy of laws. There may be some arguments as to what is the
correct order. I am just going to take someone’s claimed order here
and say a few things about it. If you do not agree with the order,
alter it to what you think it should be – once you have a good
grasp on the subject.

On top we have the LAWS OF NATURE.

These
are things like the law of gravity, the behaviour of matter, the law
of cause and effect, etc.

They
are on top of the list, because man cannot alter these laws by any
decree. No matter how practical it would be to have water freeze at a
20 degrees lower temperature and how many lives it would save in the
traffic and costs in areas affected by snow and frost, no government
has the power to do this. Only the creator of the universe could do
that.

Next
comes what has been called NATURAL
LAW or MORAL
LAW.This would include the
kind of things that man has held for true in times immemorial. Such
as “Treat others like you would like them to treat you.” “We
are all born with equal value and rights” “No man is another mans
master or owner, unless consent has been given.” “My rights end
where yours begin.” “When you step on another mans rights and
liberties, you forfeit your own.” etc. etc. [when I use the word
“Man” here it is in the meaning of “a member of Mankind”, and
includes all sexes and ages.]

Below that we have COMMERCIAL
LAW which covers interaction
between sovereign individuals. In other words someone who is in
control of his or her property and not subject to any conditions or
limitations when it comes to own life, body or belongings. Two or
more sovereign entities has the unlimited power to make any agreement
they choose, without any other parties having any say in the matter.

Then
we have COMMON LAW or TRADITIONAL LAW which is the
agreements of a group or a society, based on past experiences and
decisions of it's People or Courts. This would be the guidelines for
proper ways to interact with other members of your society.

Below
this we have STATUTORY LAW.
Statute is “a legislative
rule of society, given the 'force of law' by the consent of the
governed”. This can be compared with Company Policies” or the
rules by which the members of a Gold Club has to abide if they want
to be members. It is voluntary to take employment in a company or to
join a Golf club, thus one volunteers to follow their rules when one
joins. Likewise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that
“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his
country or through freely chosen representatives.” The corollary of
this is that everyone has the right not to be part of a political
entity. The democratic principle says that we have the right to
choose. That must logically include the choice not to be part of
something.This normally is all legislation that has the word
“Act” in it, and covers a multitude of subjects from tax and
traffic rules to the fact that it is illegal to cure cancer – or at
least claim you can.

When
you are operating in the capacity of your legal/juristic Person, you
are operating in Statutory Law.

Below this would be the rules
of companies, clubs, sports, etc. that are registered within the
political entity of the Statutory Law. This would be the lowest
“law”.

Especially
Commercial Law and Statutory Law would have lots of sub-divisions or
sub-disciplines.

But
this is pretty much a scale of seniority of law forms.

As you
can see, the phrase “It's the Law”, need to be met with the
question “What law?” or “What Law-form?” and maybe, “What
evidence do you have that that law applies to me in this instance?”

What
if I am taking my sovereign self and my somewhat less sovereign dog
for a walk on the planet that was created for our free use – with
no affiliation to any man made law or political construct and I do no
harm to anyone doing so. Can a policeman of the political entity that
conducts it's business on that part of the planet, interfere with me
or give me a ticket for have the wrong colour of dog collar or for
not carrying one of their ID documents? That depend on how you act
and what you say. If you act like the sovereign you are – then No.
But if you show him a government issued ID or admit to being a
citizen and give him name, ID number and address, then you gave him
jurisdiction.

OK,
I think that is enough of the basic things I wanted to share before I
go into different “Schools of Freedom Seeking” and what they
teach.

Again,
I apologise for the length of this. But at least it is not years of
study to become a lawyer or doctor, where you become trained to
follow the rules or orders of commercially motivated entities.I
am a carpenter, cabinet maker and joiner. It took years to learn the
basics of this trade and then you never stop learning as you practice
your trade and keep up with new materials and methods.

Anything
a bit technical takes a bit of effort to learn. If you do not like
that, go be a street sweeper or a dustman and let others run your
life for you.

I
am going to start with a few videos that will give a basic
understanding of things. I will assume you have read most of the
other articles in this blog, so you have the most basic concepts
already.

Just
a few comments, before we go into the teachings below. Each one of us
travels a different path through life. We experience different
things, draw different conclusions from this, and have a different
outlook or attitude towards life. So there will be things taught here
that will not agree with someone else’s teachings at times.Also
there are people that have had success with a certain approach or
method for years maybe, and then it seems like it does not work any
more. I cannot say why that is. Maybe the System has been altered to
prevent these remedies from reaching wide usage. Maybe they let some
things pass for a while, so that people will start using them –
just to that they can catch people on this later. What do I know. My
only advice here is that you follow your own instincts and logic, and
research things well before you put them to practice. Or test them on
trivial matters like traffic tickets to determine if they are valid
methods.The methods that build on the existing system and it's
“laws” (Statutory Law) are more likely to succeed than more basic
reasoning belonging in Natural Law or Commercial Law, since the
fiction can not see or act in the reality.

First
is a short little video to keep in mind. Words, by Stefan
Molyneux.

Here
is a very good and well presented video of how we got to where we are
now and a few things we can do about it.“Freedom a complete
picture”

ROBERT
MENARD

This
is two videos by one of the pioneers of the Freeman on the Land
concept, and one of the first I came to know. Robert Menard.Bursting
Bubbles of Government
Deception:

The
Magnificent Deception:

If
the links do not work, search on the author and title and you should
get the current link in YouTube.If you like Rob, there will be
more videos suggested by YouTube.

Bernard Weckmann. Here is a link to an article in his blog. It is not that long and gives a lot of very basic and relevant information when it comes to the "Law", "Courts", "Authority", etc.A good place to start in your further education.https://thechosenites.wordpress.com/

PAN
TERRA PCA

Continuing
in a similar vein, here is Kenneth Scott, explaining what he has
learned and done to set himself more free, on the alternative radio
station Anarchast (episode 275). Well worth listening to.

Here
is another speech by the same man (under a slightly different name:
Ken Cousens) giving some very good info on these things that
infiltrates practically all human activity – Law and Money.

The
history of the World Systems, Pando
Populus:

Ken
(or Kenneth) is of “Gemstone University” and the “Pan Terra
Private Contract Association”.I have not joined these or done
their courses (which are charged for) but they seem to be good and
thorough. Maybe something to consider once you have exhausted what I
present here.Here is the link to Pan Terra PCA:
http://panterrapca.org/And here is the one for Gemstone University:
http://www.gemstoneuniversity.org/

CREDITORS
IN COMMERCE

A
group that I think have many similarities with Pan Terra and Gemstone
University is “Creditors in Commerce”.They were active about
2009 – 2012. The teachers there were Brandon Adams, Gordon Hall and
Jack Smith. As far as I know Gordon is in Jail and Brandon might
too. But I do not have enough information to say if that is because
they lacked in knowledge or if they were railroaded to set an example
to others who might follow in their footsteps. Their main message
was one of not arguing and fighting, but to settle all claims and
demands in order to make everyone whole. I liked this peaceful
approach to commerce and much of the philosophy they preached. They
may not have had it all right, but they did have a lot right. I have
had the most success in Court when using their approach. This have
been my main influence in this quest.Many tend to balk and back
off when they realize the amount of materials there is to study here
and if that does not get them, Gordon Hall's “Thank God for this
wonderful and perfect Government” often did. But Gordon also said
“The role of the Government is to Lie, Cheat and Steal, and to
drive you back to God.”

Their site is still up and one can
download all audio files and many documents from there. The video
versions of their workshops can be had for a fee. But there are a few
free videos, so one can see what they look like at least. I used to
download a workshop and put it on an MP3 player and then listen as I
was driving, shopping, taking walks, or when I did work that did not
require much thinking (such as sanding wood or spray painting). I
listened to most things over and over, and each time I realized more
things and got more ideas about how one could deal with different
things.

Then ideally do each one in order. But there will be a lot of
talking about something that is not applicable outside the US and
which seems to have been clamped down on in the US. Too much to
explain here, but when they talk about Original issue and tax form
1099 and similar things, it is about this. Leave alone. Link:
http://creditorsincommerce.com/audio-living-temple-2009If you do not want to listen through it all, then at least listen
to session 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22. Some of
these are in the free video section, so you can see what
happens.

Then I suggest you listen to Gordon Hall talk about
application of Contracting. The first one is “The rules to the
game of life”

Much
of their workshops deal with how to settle or get rid of a Mortgage
for ones house. But how to deal with various situation relating to
Courts or Government agents coming at you for different reasons goes
like a common thread through it all.

Then
get onto the CIC (creditors in commerce) workshops and the Living
Temple workshops.Best is to do them in chronological order, but
if you want a shorter route do the first one which is CIC Chicago
Workshop(August 2009)

The
second workshop (Los Angeles Oct 2009) is very much about mortgages,
but if you want to give that a miss, you must at least listen to
Brandon’s story of when he let himself get arrested and how that
went. Very deep and touching, with a great ending. That is most of
Part 2 of that workshop.

Then
I recommend the Living Temple Workshop (April 2010). This is about
enforcement. A judge attends, and lots of very interesting stuff is
revealed. Extensive documents provided for download too.
http://creditorsincommerce.com/audio-living-templeThen do the CIC Boston, Scottsdale and the MIC Chicago one.

WINSTON
SHROUT

If
you have listened to CIC then you will be familiar with the works of
Winston Shrout.

He
normally sees to it that he get paid if he ever goes to Court.

This
man has accomplished a lot in this field, and I suggest you go to his
YouTube channel and watch what he has put there as a good point of
intro. This is the link to that
channel:https://www.youtube.com/user/WinstonShrout

He
also have a website where he tells of his upcoming workshops etc. He
also has a few products for sale. http://www.wssic.com/

When
you have exhausted that see more recent YouTube videos of his.

JEAN
KEATING

Another
one that operates in a similar vein, is Jean Keating. He has been
teaching this stuff since the 1970s and has studied law, but not made
it his profession. He can be a bit rough around the edges and a bit
of a Redneck at times. But he seem to have a heart of Gold. He has
helped many who were about to lose their homes.He also made a
text about how the prison system works, which explains why the US has
such a large prison population. Prison Treatise, by Jean Keating:

[As
you can see these all comes from Freedom School, which is one good
source of things to study once you run out of things here, or if you
want to now pick your own route.]

When
you have exhausted this, you may find more by him on YouTube or in
Search Engines.

DAVID
CLARENCE

Here
is a slightly different approach when the vultures are at the door.
David Clarence treats our Person as an Estate, by the idea that you
probably by now have come across several times – that we are lost
at sea and that the State or someone looks after our Estate in case
we will show up one day.He made up a series of letters and how to
register ones address in a specific way in order to act as the
Executor for that estate. I have met a few people that have used this
method successfully in the UK. But it seemed pretty limited and
mostly effective for being left alone when accosted. I consider it a
bit of the puzzle and worth some study, even if you may never use
it.This video should give an
introduction:

This
is a guy I like a lot. He does not go into the commercial
implications or the Person vs. Man thing. He just wants to keep it
simple and get out of Court unharmed as quickly as possible. Most
people can understand his method easily. He also have had many
victories against the IRS on behalf of his clients.He has a
“Student” called Nathan Fraser, who have had good success in the
Courts with this method.Here are a good point to start with
Mark:

This
is another of my favourites. I like him because he keeps it simple
and do not go to deep into the rabbit hole. He is a Canadian builder
with language and attitude to match. He did a lot of seminars some
years ago, and was arrested after his last workshop and spent some
time in jail with the occasional visit to a Court hearing. Now he
seem to still be handling the things he was accused of and getting
back on his feet, as well as concentrating on creating an alternative
to the current society.You tube is full of his talks and
interviews. However the best ones (in my opinion) are not available
there. Start with this one and other ones who's title grabs
you:

Then for the best. This is a series of radio interviews on
how to do things. Study these. At least the ones where Dean appears.
And I am also in possession of the audio recording of the one
that he was arrested afterwards. You will not have the slides of that
presentation, but it will be pretty clear for the most part. This was
done in Hamilton. This is contained in the folders “DC How to”
and “DC Hamilton” at this page:

Here
is a man who’s mother worked for the IRS and he got familiar with
law concepts early. He have developed a method of standing under
common law when dealing with adversaries. Common law is still a
recognized law form in many countries that were British colonies at
one time – South Africa included, if I'm not wrong.Again his
approach is relatively simple compared to the commercial routes, but
it requires that one does not fall in any of the traps that will be
laid by the Judge, in order to drag you into their preferred
jurisdiction. Well worth studying and applying if you feel up to it.
Have successfully helped people get their children back when the
Child Protection Services or other State bodies have taken peoples
children from them, with a very basic request.

Suggested
studies for starters:Karl in UK Column:

What
to do when arrested:

Karl at Johnson City
Tennessee:

PEACEFUL
INHABITANT.

I
came into contact with this method or philosophy some years back. I
like it for it's simplicity although I see it mainly as a defence
method.The first ones I listened to talking about this were a
pair calling themselves “Batman and Boris”.They had come to
the conclusion that most countries in this world is under a kind of
disguised military occupation, under military law and rules. If you
listened to Creditor in Commerce workshops, you might have heard Jack
Smith talk about this too. Much of the English political or business
language contains military terms. Chief Executive OFFICER, Payroll
OFFICER, etc.

They
had also studied some international conventions, like the Hauge and
Geneva Convention, and found that these proclaimed that an occupying
force should leave peaceful inhabitants in peace. So they concluded
“Don't be the NAME” and make no claim to it, and declare yourself
a peaceful inhabitant who just wishes to be left alone. As for the
juristic person/Strawman and it's name, they would assume this is an
entity created by the government, and not make any claim to it and
ask that the government take care of any claims against it. They had
some successful stories to tell about this approach. When asked
about their name they would reply that they were happy to give a name
on the condition that it is not used for identification purposes.
That is of course why the police asks for a name.

I cannot
find the old files from this time, but Batman seems to have been
active until recently. He is a colourful character with a refreshing
attitude. Looking now, I found a long video covering this approach,
so that will be my first link on this subject.

Here
is a nice little story of an arrest of someone following and adding
to this philosophy:

“Our housemate, having lived with us
for a while now has reached the point where he wants to exercise his
right to freely use the fruits of the earth, in this case an
abandoned property. We recently found such a property and yesterday
went to seize it to his continued use. Once inside, the door was
secured and the following notice placed in the front window –

Notice of action taken by a man

Be informed that I, a man, have
found real property (land) at xxxxx unused and abandoned.

As of 5thJune 2011 I have
seized it to my continued use and have bestowed bodily labour upon
it.

In peace

Your friend

Within
approximately 20 minutes of doing so the next door neighbour came to
check what was going on – a truthful answer was given. Very put out
and angry by this notion, the threats begin and the police are
called. Not more than three minutes later two cars carrying four
police officers arrived. Very angry at first, tasers at the ready, we
opened the door and welcomed them in. We explained what we were doing
and, when asked, explained the foundational law upon which the
process was based. We were laughing and joking with them so after
only a couple of minutes we were having a very friendly discussion
with the sergeant who I have to say was a genuinely decent man, as
were the other officers once they had been calmed down. When asked
for names, we provided a name with the caveat that the name was to be
used for their benefit being careful not to attach ourselves to it
and adding that HMCS had already acknowledged that I was not the
liable party for that name. We were arrested for causing criminal
damage (we had actually deconstructed the front door so no damage had
been caused, not that that really matters) and one of the officers
was trying very hard to make it clear that “the laws of England and
Wales apply to everyone, including me and most definitely including
you, you are not above the law.” To which the response was “you
are mistaken.”

We
had a good chat in the van on the way to the custody suite and both
committed ourselves to having a fantastic day “we are precisely
where we are meant to be. This is our purpose.”

The
two other officers who transported us, were waiting with us for about
15 minutes whilst we waited to be booked in. Again they were two
decent people. The woman officer was trying to make small talk
regarding issues of jurisdiction etc so we politely changed the small
talk to the weather and life in general.

On
booking in all the usual information was requested and I was once
again happy to provide the basics for their benefit only, and with
the appropriate caveat. Any other questions were unanswered on the
basis that I didn’t recognise the authority of the one asking them.
All requests for signature were dealt with by stating “I am unable
to sign as it is against my faith,” when asked “what is your
faith?” I stated that “it is against my faith to publically talk
about my faith.”

The
guy who took the fingerprints etc was fantastic, in fact my housemate
was convinced that he was his angel for the day. We basically made
friends with everyone – love being the order of the day. The next
10 hours we both spent crossed legged in meditation, blessing
everyone who had played a part in the day, slowly coming out of
meditation every hour when someone put their face through the slot to
see how we were. The detention officers were all pretty ok once we
had made friends with them. Ten hours of meditation can take you to
some strange places – by 7pm the walls of the cell no longer looked
solid, and I no doubt looked pretty crazy to anyone watching through
the camera when every 20 minutes or so I would break out in
hysterical laughter!

At
about 9.45pm I was finally interviewed by two of the officers who
made the initial arrest. Prior to the official start of the interview
I was being asked many probing questions by the young officer,
perhaps 27 years old, and it was clear he wasn’t trying to trip me
up he was genuinely questioning his role in this saga following what
had been said at the house at the time of the arrest. In fact his
senior officer had to rein him in. The older officer was clearly the
psychology guy, but NLP doesn’t work when you know that’s what
the game is! As soon as the tape recorder clicked on everyone got
very serious and the interview went as follows:

Me:
Before I respond to any questions you may have today, there is
something I need to tell you before we proceed.

Officer
1: What’s that?

Me:
(looking deep within his eyes) I love you, (turning to the other
officer) I love you (20 seconds of silence)... would you like to
repeat the question? (both officers pretty jittery from this point
onwards)

Officer
1: erm, are you Mr Gregory Paul Saunders?

Me:
in the matter of that name, there has been a mistake. Where is the
proper notice so that i can deal with the matter honourably?

Officer
1: we need you to identify yourself for the purpose of this
interview.

Me:
The only truthful response I can give in relation to my identity is
‘I am’. I need to make it clear at this point that I am unable to
answer any further questions.

Officer
1: Why is that?

Me:
no comment

Officer
1: I’m not trying to be awkward, would you like the opportunity to
explain why you are unable to answer any further questions?

Me:
If you were willing to state for the record that in this matter you
are speaking to me as my holy brothers then I would take great
pleasure in conversing with you as equals. As however you are wearing
a uniform and as such appear to be here representing a fictional
entity, we are not equal and I am unable to recognise you. I answer
only to my creator. For me to answer questions posed by you would
also be a blasphemy upon my divine self.

(approximately
30 questions followed relating to the events that had taken place
earlier that day, the reply to all of them being “I am unable to
answer that question”)

Officer
2: but the laws of this country apply to everyone. No one is above
the law. Do you understand that?

Me:
Might you be mistaken? (should have been “could it be that I am no
one?”)

Officer
1: we believe that you are Mr Saunders and that you did cause
criminal damage to xxxx.

Me:
Are you using that name for personal identification?

Officer
1: yes, we believe you are Mr Saunders.

Me:
Would identifying me by that name without my consent be tantamount to
involuntary servitude?

Officer
1: what does that mean?

Me:
Are you attempting to enslave me?

Officer
1: oh no. Is there anything else you would like to say before we
conclude this interview?

Me:
Would you agree that every man has free will?

Officer
1: Yes

Me:
It is my will that I leave this detention centre immediately. Will
you comply?

Officer
1: Now? Oh no, no

Me:
Are you saying man only has free will when it suits you? Would that
be tantamount to involuntary servitude?

Officer
1: Is there anything else you would like to say before we conclude
this interview?

Me:
I am unable to comment any further on this matter.

Tape
stopped

Officer
2: So completely off the record, man to man, what got you into all
this then?

This
question came out of a genuine interest as it was very clear by this
point that the days events had had somewhat of an impact on this chap
and had made him question his role. We chatted for the next 10
minutes as equals with him expressing a genuine interest in
everything from the global matrix of control, to the nature of the
banking system, to the desire to create a better world for our
children.

Within
five minutes of being returned to the cell the case was dropped and I
was released with no further action to be taken. My housemate
followed five minutes later. When leaving, no signatures were
requested, either for the release itself or for the return of
chattels.

On
the way home we drove past the property that we had been arrested at
to find that the door had been left ajar so no attempt was made to
prevent a repeat performance which would be without the possibility
of arrest for ‘criminal damage.’ Nonetheless, in view of the
state of the house, which was unknown beforehand, my housemate has
decided to find a different property to use. So we look forward to
another adventure!

A
massive bingo moment occurred during that day. Whilst I gave what I
would have considered the correct responses at all times, it was only
during the meditation and subsequently the interview (where I
practiced what I had learnt during the meditation) that I fully and
completely realised the most basic of truths – Any agency or
authority being nothing more than a complete fiction does not deserve
the slightest recognition from us as men. This is why we had still
not previously been completely left in peace – by engaging with
them in any way we ARE acknowledging their authority because any man
who truly knows who he is would never sully his own divinity by
engaging with, let alone responding to questions posed by, a
fictional entity.

Ultimately
then we have no business communicating with or attending the place of
business of any fictional entity, including the court. Why would
anyone who has come to understand that they are far more powerful
than any artificial entity, ever go to or communicate with a
non-existent entity for any reason, when doing so is acknowledging
their very existence and thus their authority? In the past I have
justified such action by expressing intent to help my brothers settle
their matters, however there are a couple of issues here – 1.
Whilst they are wearing their personas, they are not my brothers no
matter how much I treat them as such. 2. If I don’t recognise
anything artificial, how could I possibly assist with the settlement
of any matter which originates in the fictional realm?

I
am not suggesting that the previous processes talked about on this
site are obsolete, simply that they only represent a partial truth.
Because we tend not to realise the nature of our own enlightenment
over night they also remain the ideal stepping stone process along
the path of self realisation. For this reason I still highly
recommend the court process of correcting a mistake, if not for a
complete settlement, for the wonderful opportunity for self growth
that the experience provides.

If
I were to have yesterdays time again I would simply have stated at
the outset, when the police first came to the door of the house, that
“it is against my faith to acknowledge you or enter into any form
of discussion with you unless you can confirm that you are my holy
brother and not a representative of an artificial entity. I refer you
to the notice in the front window should you require any information
pertaining to our actions today.” Despite whatever justification
the ego may create to deviate from this position, any deviation is in
itself an acknowledgement of their authority and a declaration that
(at least in some way) we have misunderstood who we truly are. The
reason why this may prove a difficult step for many to take (or to
even acknowledge it as being the right step) is that it does require
significantly more peace of mind and absence of fear, but they that’s
what this journey is all about isn’t it? Notwithstanding the above
if I were accused of being the name I would still respond with “In
the matter of the name there has been a mistake. Where is the proper
notice so that I can deal with this matter honourably?” - But
nothing more.

Though
some minor refinements may be required, I strongly believe that this
is the missing piece to the puzzle and represents the complete and
final solution to “getting out of the box.” I will start a new
forum on this over the next few days.

I
love you all, you beautiful people

p.s.
When I refer to “my faith” I simply mean the hearts will (or
conscience) which receives its instructions directly from my true
nature - divine consciousness itself. Whilst “my faith” may
conjure a suggestion of ownership, it is simply a way of drawing a
line in the sand across which no fictional authority can cross in a
manner that the fictional authority can understand. What exactly is
meant by “my faith” is not their business.

---------

I
asked what the Caveat was and this is the reply:

Kent
- the caveat was "I will provide a name for your benefit only,
so long as you understand that it is not to be used to personally
identify me" or something to that effect. Having said that, and
as you can see from the story, I would not say the same thing again.”

CLINT
RICHARDSONThis is an American guy that has done extensive
studies and have experience with the “justice system”. He writes
and talks on this subject.

I
have not studied much of him, but like what I have heard. Again
centred on the US, but since the same system is in force in most
countries and probably all Western nations, it is relevant in many
ways.Here is a good video by
him:

Here
is one that I am a bit reluctant to recommend. Mostly for the faulty
slogan or assumption

“It’s
illegal to use the Legal Name”, but also because I never had any
“Aha Moments” listening to Kate (who is actually a man, wanting
to be a woman) and finding him hard to follow. But he has lots of
followers and lots of people have swallowed this “Legal Name”
misconception. So he has gotten a lot of people to wake up and for
that he deserves to be recognized.

Here again the idea is to
not use the name or not let oneself be identified as it. If there is
more to it, you can be the Judge of that.

The
reason I say the statement “It's illegal to use the legal name”
is false, is because it is based on the misunderstanding that the
name is under copyright. This in turn comes from the fact that the
Birth Certificate in at least the UK and Canada has the text “Crown
Copyright” on it. But looking into copyright law, one soon finds
out that a name or title cannot be copyrighted. Nor can facts or
numbers. A copyrighted text has to be a unique creation. A name is
not unique. Lots of people have the same name. All government forms
are copyright protected. That is the form itself – not the data
entered into it.

-
- - - - - - - - - - -

As
far as I can think of now, that are all the “teachers” or
philosophies that provide some kind of method or approach in dealing
with those who believe they have the right to rule us.

Then
there are people who just like to inform us of the truth, or get us
to realize we are our own masters and no one can be superior to
another against that others will. Or that we are slaves, as some have
come to conclude.

The first one that comes to mind here is
Larken Rose. He has made lots of YouTube videos and written a
book on this.Here are some very good videos of his, that I often
use to make a point.Statism: The Most Dangerous
Religion

Message
to the voting cattle

I'm
allowed to rob you

The
tiny dot

Another
one is Mark Passio. He is a former member of some secret
society and is well aware of what goes on there and what their aims
are. He talks about this and related matters. Very logical and
informative. Maybe he should have been above in the list of those
with some kind of remedy. I have not studied that much by him, but
what I have seen I like.

This
list would not be complete without Jordan
Maxwell, who is one of the
longest active researchers and speakers on matters of conspiracy, law
and who rules this world. He ranges from ancient history up to
current events. Too much material for any links I will give here to
give him justice. But here are some stuff to give you a taste:Matrix
of Power:

There
is one guy I really like. Not because he reveals much new or has some
great method, but because of his sharp logic and great sense of
humour. He is also totally devoid of any Political Correctness. This
is the now late comedian George Carling.

I
let him speak for himself. Enjoy!About Muhammed
Ali:

Dumb
Americans:

People
who ought to be killed:

How
language is used to mask
truth:

I
think I will end off here. There might be some more of interest on
the Conspiracy page of this blog.

I
know this is not a complete list and that new talent will enter the
scene all the time, just as the current ones might tire of being
attacked, ridiculed, threatened or thrown in jail. I will add to this
as and when I come across things I think should be included.

If
you know of someone or something you think should be added to this
page, please let me know by message or comment below. Kent